The good point you make is one that we do indeed consider very seriously, both in the responses we send to individuals and in the weekly column in which we share selected responses. You have prompted us to highlight for our readership the background and goals of our column.
The joint OU/Eretz Hemdah “Ask the Rabbi” service provides an address to a wide variety of people throughout the world to submit questions that, for whatever reasons, they are not directing to a local or personal rabbi.[2] Some questions have only one “cookie-cutter” answer that fits all circumstances, irrespective of venue, level of need, etc. Other questions have different legitimate answers that, additionally, are apt to be affected by circumstances, including the querier’s halachic orientation.
We have several goals in sharing some of our answers with the public. One is to inform the masses how to act when they encounter the same circumstances that are addressed in the response. However, there are other important goals. We treasure teaching Torah lishma (for its own intrinsic purpose), including conceptually significant issues and cases, even when few are likely to encounter them.
We also strive to expose our readership to a multi-faceted and, we pray, properly balanced approach to rendering halachic decisions. We aim for an approach that is traditional on the one hand but, in addition, is open to innovative problem solving. We aim for high halachic standards, but with a realization that an objective or even a subjective need often plays an important role even according to these high standards. We view implementation of this balance as one of the most exciting and important elements of p’sak halacha, and we think it is appropriate to share responses that display these characteristics, considering our broad readership.
We will illustrate with an example from a great posek whom we often try to emulate – Rav Moshe Feinstein. In a set of teshuvot written over the course of one week,[3] Rav Moshe wrote ostensibly contradictory rulings to the same rabbi on the same case, regarding a shochet who publicly did something that constitutes chillul Shabbat according to almost all rabbanim. The rulings are not actually contradictory because Rav Moshe begins the second responsum: “If we will forbid him … it will negate all that you have fixed with toil in the kashrut [situation] and the peace in the city.” He follows with a novel leniency to allow the shochet to continue in his vocation with certain provisions. It is fascinating that Rav Moshe was willing to publish the two responsa back-to-back without hiding his change of mind due to the circumstances.[4] The first responsum remains the basic one, for standard situations. The second one demonstrates how he could “stretch” to be lenient when needed. It also teaches that when Rav Moshe ruled stringently, even in the face of great need, it was not out of a lack of effort. He apparently believed that the lessons of the two responsa outweighed any confusion there might be on their implementation.
We estimate that a clear majority of our column’s readers are solidly Orthodox English-speaking olim. Under normal circumstances, we would not consider being (or allow our child to be) a waiter in an Israeli non-kosher restaurant. However, not only did Rav Ovadia Yosef allow someone in great financial distress to be a cook in a non-kosher restaurant, with certain provisos and until he could find another job, but he published the ruling.[5] Rav Moshe allowed a delivery man in Europe (in 1929) to deliver pork.[6] The Tzitz Eliezer[7] permitted a hospital nurse to serve/feed non-kosher food to non-Jewish patients. Parallel circumstances that require analysis of the same issues/sources discussed by these great poskim arise more frequently than one might imagine.
We want our readership to enjoy the Torah’s richness and hone their halachic sophistication to know what to ask and how. We want them to know that religious sensitivities and general sensibilities should often preclude certain matters that may not be clearly prohibited. Nevertheless, we subscribe to the approach of many rabbis, from a variety of traditions, who search for solutions to “non-cookie-cutter” cases. Sometimes such rulings should be kept quiet; sometimes they should be publicized. May HaShem protect us from mistakes, both in content and in choice of presentation!